Shouldn't the baby be HER responsibility only, if SHE opts not to get an abortion?

Question

An agreement to have s*x is not an agreement to make a baby. This isn't the era of the caveman when we pretty much have to no choice but to go through with a pregnancy. An abortion is essentially medicine. If this is against one's religion, then they should become agnostic, since religion is silly.

I'm expecting someone to shout, "Do the crime. Do the time." But remember what you'd do if a loved one was having a heart attack from years of poor eating and lack of exercise. You would "interfere with nature" and take him to the hospital in an attempt to duck him having to do the time for his crime.

Answer 1

No, have to disagree. Despite the fact that most people have forgotten that s*x is truly for procreation...I'm sorry, but it is. If you choose to s***w someone and use no protection, you should be prepared for the likely outcome. I mean, it's not like you didn't know what happens? If you are ready to have a baby, then you are ready to have unprotected s*x.  Otherwise, condom up buddy.

Answer 2

Not sure I understood it all, but I would have to say that while I am pro-choice (accidents do happen), I am also against the use of abortion as a contraceptive method (so to speak).

In other words, yes, agreement to have unprotected s*x is an agreement to make a baby. If you really don't want to risk pregnancy, use a contraceptive method. The woman doesn't end up pregnant on her own, the guy has just as much responsability with it as the woman.

Answer 3

if you don't want anything to do with the baby that's fair enough,but dont try and plead your pussyhole case to me on here,be a man you dik head

Answer 4

The question itself I think could be a good one. I think it could be properly defended but probably not in a western society. As this is a moral issue at its heart (and not a legal or religious one) there is no "right" answer. However, the argument you've presented above probably won't convince too many people.

I do understand your point but the heart problem analogy is logically flawed b/c there is only one person accountable for a lifetime of poor diet and exercise. The two cannot be compared.

I also understand your frustration as it is quite unfair that while both parties choose to engage in the act that creates the "situation" the decision as to whether or not abortion is acceptable is ultimately made by the woman. But that being said, everyone needs to be accountable for their actions and are responsible for evaluating all of the potential outcomes prior to making a decision. Yes, abortion is essentially medicine, and let's use your heart attack example (despite the fact that it contains flawed logic). Who makes the decision to have the heart surgery? Obviously, the answer is the person on which the procedure is to be performed. Your argument seems to have not considered the future repercussions to the woman as a result of an abortion (i.e. a complication could arise which could not allow her to ever have children again). In your proposed scenario the woman has to choose between being a single mother and the potential side effects of an abortion. What I'm trying to say is that while you are right that an agreement to have s*x is not an agreement to have a baby. It is, however, an agreement that both of your actions could result in an unforeseen event and an acknowledgment that you are both aware of your society's rules and norms as to how these events are dealt with.  

It's not a matter of "doing the crime and doing the time" as stated in your question. It's a matter of simply being an adult and accepting the responsibilities that come along with that. Everyone makes decisions that they wish they could make over again but at the end of the day you just have to get over it and move on. More often than not there isn't even the option of a "fix".  

I don't understand why religion was even brought up in your argument. While I do agree that religion is silly, that doesn't mean that others don't have the right to believe in it. That discussion is for another time anyways because it is (or should be) completely irrelevant in a discussion of this issue. Everyone is entitled to a belief system, whether it stems from religion, lack of religion (agnosticism) or something else. So I'm not really sure why this point was brought up at all.

Since western society is one in which men and women are supposed to have equal rights it is unlikely that you will generate much support for an argument like this one that puts all of the risk and responsibility on the woman while completely absolving the man.

Ok, didn't even see the additional comments before writing the above. Now the argument has become even more flawed. "The decision to have a baby comes from the decision to NOT have an abortion"? Your lack of objectivity is destroying your own argument. An abortion is a risk reward decision that each individual will make based on a SUBJECTIVE set of criteria. You're assertion above is based only on the fact that abortion is legal, you can't think this narrowly about it. It's a moral issue and needs to be argued as such in order to be legitimate. The fact is that laws simply reflect the moral views of society. Since one stems from the other you can't use them together in forming a new logical argument. If you really believe that what you stated above is logical, then we can follow that logic and deduce that, if it were legal, that the decision to have a 10 year old son would not be made when he was conceived, or born but rather by not deciding to kill him before his tenth birthday. If "29th trimester" abortions were legal would you still agree with what you've said?

Furthermore, you cannot talk about abortion as though it were a trip to the dentist. There are serious side effects, both mental and physical, that can result from a woman having an abortion. If your argument is going to make logical sense FOR society in general it needs to BENEFIT society in general. I'm not saying that it can't but I am saying that you're not analyzing the issue from a balanced perspective. Give us some potential benefits of your proposal (i.e. population control, increased economic production due to fewer lost work hours etc..) that could offset the risks associated with all of the extra abortions you intend to create. Otherwise please concede your position because you're simply digging yourself a larger hole. Putting this additional mental and physical burden on women needs to have a greater social impact than absolving dead beat men from raising children in order to be at all credible.

Answer 5

An agreement to have s*x is the same as having an agreement to have a baby.  This is especially true if you are too cheap to buy a pack of condoms or pay for this person to be on birth control.  How dare you say an abortion is medicine.  This is killing a living thing.  You are immature.

Answer 6

oh sure but the baby is never just HER responsibility when she needs a father to help take care of it

if your the only one taking care of it then i understand if not i dont get your logic or very many other peoples for that matter

Answer 7

No, because it takes two to make a baby, last time I looked and you had your pleasure and you chose not to use a condom so you need to be responsible for your own child.

Answer 8

Your analogy holds no water.  By taking them to a hospital after a heart attack you are continuing life, not destroying life.  Abortion destroys life.  Abortion is not "medicine".  Abortion is killing something that has the capacity to become a complete person.  (I am pro-choice, btw but no one should be forced into having an abortion.)

If you don't want kids, don't have s*x.  That's all there is to it.  If you decide to have s*x you have to be willing to take the consequences.  Why should the girl be the only one to suffer consequences when it took the actions of two people to create the problem?  

OTOH, If the girl pretends to be on birth control and/or sterile, but really isn't, then it's a completely different story.  That is complete and utter fraud.

Answer 9

do agree with you its her responsibilty if she didnt want an abortion

but how can a man not care after the baby is born?

Answer 10

Some girls   unfortunately do get pregnant at the age of 14 or 15. Still children themselves and are obviously in no shape to raise the baby,  some are not even sure who the daddy is.  They should consider putting the baby up for adoption and shop around for a good family eager and willing to support the baby with lots of love and support.  

Answer 11

Take everything you've ever believed in, and then have someone in authority say that it was all fake. Wouldn't you be a bit confused then? Same response as to why people follow religion. I would agree that an abortion may be a better choice than some others. For example, if a 15 year old girl is impregnated, why ruin her life? The problem there may lie in the parents for not teaching the young lady the ways of the world and expecting her to use protection. The church also claims that contraception shouldn't be used because it interferes with God's plan. How many people have been taught by their parents (and their parents, and their grandparents and great grandparents and so on) that this is God's will and that's the only way there is to it.

  However, if both sexes are of age of consent, let's say they're both in their 20s. They're bright, but simply made a mistake or his rubber broke or her pill didn't work, what happens then? They don't wish to marry, but she feels that she can't destroy this life growing within her, so she does opt to have the baby. Now, she has assumed the responsibility for bringing the child into the world. She can try to sue the biological father for some kind of support, because after all, it does take two to make the baby,even if he says he didn't want it, he did help to make the new life. She cannot hold him responsible to raise the child, but he is responsible to support the child.

  All this being said, what should be happening is sexual education and CLARIFICATION in ALL schools at younger ages. Why shouldn't Catholic schools teach about contraception. It's laughable to assume that if you preach hellfire and brimstone to a bunch of horny, hormone ridden teenage girls and boys that they're going to cower in fear of the unseen, yet allknowing almighty. Bull!! They'll experiment in spite of the fear that's been preached to them. Yet, if you teach these kids that the feelings they have is normal and if they do have s*x, HERE'S HOW TO PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES, then you've done a much better thing.